What does the West owe to Ukraine?

posted at 9:21 am on March 6, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

As the situation in the Crimean Peninsula continues to deteriorate, there has been plenty of time for analysts to try to sort out where this show is heading, what the long term implications are and – perhaps more importantly – what the rest of the world can, or should, do about it. It’s not difficult to conclude that Russia is clearly “on the wrong side of history” (to borrow a phrase from the President) and something needs to be done. But what?

There are a couple of very interesting articles on this subject offering a rather counter-intuitive answer from Dr. James Joyner this week. Joyner’s profession and background is such that he pretty much eats, sleeps and breaths foreign policy, so I was interested in finding out what he had to say on this admittedly complicated situation. In the first piece, he looks at the technical details of the Budapest Memorandum, (a subject which Ed covered here when this first broke open) and finds that it might not say what many of us think it says. Russia is clearly in violation, but the response required by the West has some caveats.

Likewise, the parties “reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.” Emphasis mine. So, unless Russia uses nuclear weapons, the other signatories have no obligation to do anything. If Russia were, unfathomably, to threaten or use nukes, then the other parties would be obligated to take the matter to the Security Council—where Russia would promptly veto any proposed action.

In terms of following the precise constraints of the agreement, I’ll grant that Joyner is correct. (And the odds of Russia breaking out any nukes over this seem miniscule indeed.) But at the same time, that’s a rather “lawyerly” way of looking at it, much the same as a company seeking any hidden clause in the user agreement to avoid making good on a warranty. As Joyner himself concedes, Russia has at least violated the spirit of the agreement, and likewise, the spirit of the memorandum would imply that the West will have Ukraine’s back in a case like this.

Putting the legal details aside, though, how actively engaged – particularly if it comes to military action – should the West be in keeping the Ukraine in one piece? For a different perspective on this question, Joyner refers to an analysis from Anatol Lieven

In the two decades after the collapse of the USSR, it should have become obvious that neither West nor Russia had reliable allies in Ukraine. As the demonstrations in Kiev have amply demonstrated, the “pro-Western” camp in Ukraine contains many ultra-nationalists and even neo-fascists who detest Western democracy and modern Western culture. As for Russia’s allies from the former Soviet establishment, they have extracted as much financial aid from Russia as possible, diverted most of it into their own pockets, and done as little for Russia in return as they possibly could.

Over the past year, both Russia and the European Union tried to force Ukraine to make a clear choice between them—and the entirely predictable result has been to tear the country apart. Russia attempted to draw Ukraine into the Eurasian Customs Union by offering a massive financial bailout and heavily subsidized gas supplies. The European Union then tried to block this by offering an association agreement, though (initially) with no major financial aid attached. Neither Russia nor the EU made any serious effort to talk to each other about whether a compromise might be reached that would allow Ukraine somehow to combine the two agreements, to avoid having to choose sides.

For now, the overwhelming need is to prevent war. War in Ukraine would be an economic, political, and cultural catastrophe for Russia. In many ways, the country would never recover, but Russia would win the war itself. As it proved in August 2008, if Russia sees its vital interests in the former USSR as under attack, Russia will fight. NATO will not. War in Ukraine would therefore also be a shattering blow to the prestige of NATO and the European Union from which these organizations might never recover either.

Joyner’s response seems to be that a full blown war of any description would be a disaster, but he differs with Lieven on the end game.

Now, I concur in Lieven’s bottom line view that major war in Ukraine would be a disaster and should therefore be avoided. It’s not at all clear to me that a unified Ukraine is particularly desirable, much less fighting for. As Dave Schuler note over the weekend (see “The Ukraine Crisis in Three Maps” and “More Ukrainian Maps“) how to split Ukraine is by no means obvious. But Lieven hardly overstates the situation when he declares “If there is one absolutely undeniable fact about Ukraine, which screams from every election and every opinion poll since its independence two decades ago, it is that the country’s population is deeply divided between pro-Russian and pro-Western sentiments.”

But Lieven’s contention that failure to fight a war that Lieven describes as catastrophic would somehow be the death knell to NATO and the EU is a head scratcher. First, avoiding disasters would seem an unalloyed good. Second, aside from some counter-piracy operations, the EU has no history of operating as a military entity. Third, Ukraine rejected entreaties to join both NATO and the EU; in what universe are NATO and the EU nonetheless obligated to go to war to defend Ukraine?

Joyner put a sub-topic on the second article which says, literally, “The West owes Ukraine nothing.” But I’m not reading that from the conclusions. After digesting all of this, I can see where a case can be made that the Ukraine – speaking strictly as a national government entity – hasn’t exactly gone above and beyond to endear itself to the West, and has snubbed some opportunities to align more closely with European interests. It’s also clear that the country is divided, and deciding who, precisely, is speaking for the people at any given time isn’t a job for the layman. But at the same time, it’s not hard to understand that Ukrainians are under a lot of pressure, living with the Russian Bear literally on their doorstep. It’s also impossible to ignore the fact that there is an element of unrest there expressing a desire for independence and a chance to chart their own course – something the US should, by definition, support.

But does that obligation of support extend to the level of an end game where Western troops are exchanging fire with the Russians at some point? Like both Joyner and Lieven, I think we should all hope that another solution presents itself long before things reach that stage, and there are many possibilities of that happening. The real question for us now is whether or not we have a policy in place – not to mention a plan – if all those other measure fail.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

The real question for us now is whether or not we have a policy in place – not to mention a plan – if all those other measure fail.

.
None of that matters since we are being led in the foreign policy realm by a behind who is a world-wide laughing stock as well. What we should worry about is what he will do for a “Tonkin Gulf” type incident that will precipitate a situation which will remove all eyes from his administration’s catastrophic domestic policy.

Aside from the fact that President Clinton signed a pact with Ukraine promising to protect Ukraine and its borders from Russian invasion, yes, we owe them nothing.

In a new era where politicians can openly lie to their own citizens and then do what they want (“If you like your plan/doctor you can keep your plan/doctor”), where lies and broken promises are their ‘currency’, the ‘new norm’, turning our backs on allies and breaking our pacts with them means nothing.

President Obama vowed to ‘fundamentally change the United States’…and so he did. We went from a nation guided by JFK’s promise to the world that we would pay any price, make any sacrifice to help those fighting for freedom to appeasing the Putin’s of the woirld by turning our back on allies and abandoning them when they call on us to honor our word.

Don’t get me wrong – I am not advocating going to war with Russia/Putin over this. What is done is done – this is OVER. Failed foreign policy allowed a dictator to invade a nation simply on the excuse that Russians lived in that neighboring country and were in ‘jeopardy’…because he did not like how their election turned out.

Crimea is now part of Russia. Putin has the option of taking Eastern Ukraine, an important industrial region…because Russian people live there, too. In fact, if he wanted to, Putin knows he could take all of the Ukraine. There is no one to stop him, and his nation’s parliment has already given him the authority to do so. If he does choose to take all of the Ukraine, Obama will do nothing substantial, and, like now, it will irreversibly happen without much violence, if any. Appeasement and ‘leading from behind’ seems to be Obama’s Foreign Policy.

what we may owe them and what we are capable of doing are not the same thing.
EU wanted them in their sphere, let the EU take the hits for now.
6 years of a weak apologetic foreign policy cannot be fixed at the snap of a hat (short of actually declaring full war)and 13+ years of fighting have hurt troops. Add to that we’re militarily involved in many more areas now than before and its just not an option now. its not a measure of should we do something, its that we CAN’T.

As Joyner himself concedes, Russia has at least violated the spirit of the agreement, and likewise, the spirit of the memorandum would imply that the West will have Ukraine’s back in a case like this.

Russia is attempting to take over part of a sovereign, UN nation. Last time someone did that was Saddam and Kuwait and Bush the Elder got a UN authorization to reverse that. Much as Bush the Younger did to get rid of Saddam. Here there’s no UN authorization, just a naked land grab.

however, any Russian leader is going to demand that Russia has a warm water port. And these days, a Crimean War part II will devolve into a nuclear war. Russia wants Crimea, Russia can have Crimea. Just don’t expect us to do anything nice with them anymore.

Likewise, the parties “reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.” Emphasis mine. So, unless Russia uses nuclear weapons, the other signatories have no obligation to do anything.

Uh … sure. I guess the next time a society suddenly gets an autonomous nation – with lots of strategic nukes – they are going to think five times before giving that bounty away.

Personally, I was amazed after the fall of the USSR that Ukraine was so hot to give away their nukes. I couldn’t see any point for them to do it and couldn’t imagine they would benefit from that. I had to eat crow back then as Ukraine made an illogical and silly move that defied explanation. Guess who’s eating crow, now, as the West tells Ukraine, “You fvcked up. You trusted us!”

Of course, much of this has to do with the fact that America chose SUicide by Indonesian with Barky, the Dog-Eating Retard, and everyone who had any deals with America should have known that those agreements were all dead and buried with the US.

If Ukraine somehow makes it through this I expect that they would get on to a nuke program of some sort.

Let’s add up the assets and liabilities before we get involved in any adventure.

US Liabilities

Weak, indecisive socialist president
Downsized military with declining morale
Impossibly deep in debt and getting deeper every day
We not only have no friends in the area, we have no friends period!
Enemy has short supply lines. Ours are 4500 miles long
Enemy has competent chess player leader. We have a moron.
Target area of involvement-Ukraine-Historically corrupt and unstable.

Of course, we can’t do much with Russia anymore, anyway, as Barky has been unilaterally dismantling our strategic nuclear arsenal and he and Congress have been having a blast cutting the military left and right – except for money and time spent homosexualizing and feminizing every part of our combat corps as they can. There’s always extra money around when it can help gayify something or put women in positions that they are physically unable to handle.

After digesting all of this, I can see where a case can be made that the Ukraine – speaking strictly as a national government entity – hasn’t exactly gone above and beyond to endear itself to the West, and has snubbed some opportunities to align more closely with European interests. It’s also clear that the country is divided, and deciding who, precisely, is speaking for the people at any given time isn’t a job for the layman. But at the same time, it’s not hard to understand that Ukrainians are under a lot of pressure, living with the Russian Bear literally on their doorstep. It’s also impossible to ignore the fact that there is an element of unrest there expressing a desire for independence and a chance to chart their own course – something the US should, by definition, support.

“Hillary Clinton on Wednesday pulled back from comparing Russian President Vladimir Putin’s actions in Ukraine to those of Hitler.

She said comments made the night before at a private event were meant only to bring “a little historical perspective” to Russia’s claim that it entered the Crimean peninsula in Ukraine in order to protect ethnic-Russians.

“That is reminiscent of claims that were made back in the 1930s, when Germany under the Nazis, kept talking about how they had to protect German minorities in Poland and Czechoslovakia and elsewhere throughout Europe,” she said. “So I just want everybody to have a little historic perspective. I am not making a comparison, but I am recommending that we can perhaps learn form this tactic that has been used before.”
During a talk at UCLA Wednesday, Clinton called Putin a “tough guy with a thin skin” and described his attempt to “re-Sovietize” the region as “squandering the potential” for a great nation.

She emphasized support for the administration’s call on Russia to refrain from using force and complimented the administration’s diplomacy on the issue“I think it is important that we have a smart response. I don’t know that it does any good to just up the rhetoric unless we can make sure that Europe is responding,” she said, noting that Germany would be key to a resolution.

She said a resolution would require three things: the solidification of the new Ukrainian government, assurance that ethnic Russians in the country feel protected and the backing off of Russia. Clinton said a resolution would require a bit of “good cop bad cop,” noting that there seemed to be a marked improvement with Russia after the stock market fell in the country earlier this week.

During the question and answer portion of the talk, Clinton spoke on a wide-range of topics including the healthcare law and her views on a female president.

When asked if it was important to have a female president, Clinton quipped: “The right female president.”

She did not offer any ideas on her own potential run but has said she will make the decision later this year…”

and a chance to chart their own course – something the US should, by definition, support.

Is this the kind of support where you keep recounting the votes until you get the outcome you want? or where you accept the outcome you get? Does not the concept of “Charting their own course”, mean, allowing them to decide?

Is this the end for Crimea?
Is this the beginning for the other regions of Ukraine with Russian minorities (Moldova, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania)(Belarus is practically part of Russia anyway)?
Is this the beginning for the former Eastern Europe?
Is this the end of Obama’s foreign policy?
Is this the beginning of GOP presidential success in 2016?

The most effective and crippling-to-Russia is one thing this President is admantly against —

Russia has a choke-hold on Europe with their dependence on Russian energy / natural gas. So, Obama should hold a press conference and declare that the United States sees no other option but to increase our oil / shale and gas production to begin providing those dependent on Russian enegry with an alternative – energy provided by the U.S. The threat of doing so alone would put a massive dent in Putin’s plan.

Obama, however, hate oil, coal, and natural gas industries, is completely aginst using our resources to make our own nation energy independent, and is waging a war against them while using hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars to fund Obama donor-invested-in ‘Green Energy’ companies that keep going bankrupt. (13 and counting). Although we are at a point where our own energy could make us self-sufficient/energy independent AND would hit Putin where it hurts the most, Obama would / will never do it.

Without saying Ukraine is entitled to Operation Overlord II or the Berlin Airlift Part Deux, and taking into account almost $2 billion in aid from the US to Ukraine since the Soviet Union collapsed, we at least owe them something imo, because they answered when we called for help in Iraq:

An independent contingent, consisting of 1,650 troops from the 5th Mechanized Brigade, was deployed to Kut (South Central Iraq) in late 2003. In May 2005, the brigade was replaced with the 81st Tactical Group, numbering around 900 troops.A training team of around 40 troops remained in Diwaniyah until December 9, 2008.

Ukraine suffered 18 fatalities & three Ukrainian engineers were taken hostage in Iraq but were freed shortly after. wiki writeup of Ukraine’s contribution to the Multi National Forces-Iraq coalition

Obama’s metastasizing autocracy — We fret about democracy in the Ukraine while Obama treats the Constitution as a series of suggestions. For the president, the three branches of government are him, his pen and his telephone.

Putin is a strong man. Obama is a weak man (except when it comes to bullying our allies). Obama venerates multilateralism. Putin is willing to go it alone. Obama is committed to the entire LGBT agenda (including gay “marriage”). He’s also the only sitting president to address Planned Parenthood, such is his commitment to abortion without borders. Putin believes the foregoing is the road to national annihilation.

Not sure who the “we” is or the definition of “owe.” Certainly there is no apparent law or treaty that mandates any support for the Ukraine.

Sometimes it is helpful to break down world events into smaller componants to test different attitudes and approaches.

Before world-wide rapid information transfer, small communities banded together and decided for themselves what attitudes and treatments were logical and all could agree to. Usually these followed to a great degree their religous beliefs…and ultimately were encoded as “laws.” If an individual acted in a way that harmed the majority, then the group would move to stop those actions and write more “laws” to prevent a re-occurance.

On the surface one could wonder why that hasn’t worked on a world-wide scale. I would argue that none of the nations come together as equals, as do the citizens in forming a community. Some have more power than others…and aren’t going to give it up, particularly when they have the military might to enforce their own “no.” This is not only clear when looking at the world generally, but also when examining the structure of the United Nations. The biggest, most powerful nations protect their control with vetoes in the Security Council, even as they posture as backing democratic rule.

If your view the Ukraine as a citizen of your own town, think of the reaction of a neighbor broke into their neighbor’s home, and claimed control, use and ownership of 1 bedroom and a bath. Can you imagine not calling the police and having that person evicted from that bedroom and bath and thrown in jail? I can’t. Would you think that arguing that that neighbor had, years ago, lived and used that bedroom and bath at no cost have any effect of lowering the punishment or preventing the eviction. I think not.

In short, we certainly don’t owe the Ukraine anything…but maybe we owe it to ourselves to do something.